Religious Liberty Wins Big at the Supreme Court

A big win today for religious liberty from the Supreme Court. In a sweeping 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment. The case was Trinity Lutheran v. Comer.

Missouri offered recycled tires to schools for safer playgrounds. Missouri said that Trinity Lutheran School couldn’t even have used tires. Why? Because it is run by a church.

Keeping kids safe doesn’t spread the Gospel. There is no “compelling state interest” in leaving religious school playgrounds more dangerous than public ones.

Chief Justice John Roberts knew what to think about banning an ordinary public benefit like safety equipment from a school just because it’s Christian. He called it “odious to our Constitution.”

Here’s a second piece of (maybe) good news. The Court today decided to hear Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Colorado fined baker Jack Phillips for refusing to decorate a gay wedding cake.

Mississippi’s Religious Freedom Act

A third piece of good news from the lower courts: Last week a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel lifted an injunction. It had blocked Mississippi’s “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act.”

Mississippi’s 2016 law is the best in any state. It provides the broadest protections for gay marriage dissenters. It guards those with three specific beliefs:

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman;
Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage
Man or woman refers to an individual’s immutable biological sex.

The law gives religious organizations new protections. Government may not force them to provide goods and services for a gay wedding. It can’t punish them for hiring believers who agree with their teachings. They don’t have to offer married student housing to gay married couples. They can’t be banned from running foster care or adoption agencies for their marriage policies.

Individuals also receive new protections. Government can’t punish:

Traditional believers who wish to be adoptive or foster parents.
Medical and other professionals who won’t take part in sex reassignment, fertility services, or psychological counseling.
Business owners who decline to provide goods and services for weddings.
State employees who express their beliefs. (If Georgia had passed such a law Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran would still have his job.)

The 5th Circuit three-man panel of judges did not rule on the substance. Instead they ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Merely feeling “triggered” or stigmatized doesn’t count as a harm.

The first time a wedding photographer refuses a client, however, the law will likely be back on trial. (An aside: the law’s chances of surviving under the current Court would be stronger if it protected both gay marriage supporters and dissenters.)

he plaintiffs have requested that the whole 5th circuit review the three-judge ruling. But if this ruling stands Trump will have more time to appoint another Gorsuch to the court.

An Insight Into the Supreme Court

The good news is the Trinity Lutheran victory shows us the current Court is more supportive of religious liberty than many of us feared.

Justice Elana Kagan joined the majority opinion without any reserve. Justice Breyer wrote his own concurring opinion limiting his judgement to playground resurfacing programs and not all government benefits.

Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginbsurg dissented. In Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, she warned of almost apocalyptic consequences:

This ruling, “weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both,” she wrote, “If this separation means anything, it means that the government cannot, or at the very least need not, tax its citizens and turn that money over to houses of worship. The court today blinds itself to the outcome this history requires and leads us instead to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.”

If so, it’s a good thing.

If religious freedom means anything it is that the government may not exclude us based on our faith. It may not tell Muslims they can’t build a mosque. It may not tell a church “Our firemen won’t protect your buildings.” It may not tell a religious school that their children’s safety doesn’t matter. (For more from the author of “Religious Liberty Wins Big at the Supreme Court” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Court Partly Reinstates Trump Travel Ban, Fall Arguments Set

The Supreme Court is letting a limited version of the Trump administration ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect, a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.

The court said Monday the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen could be enforced as long as they lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The justices will hear arguments in the case in October.

Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts. (Read more from “Court Partly Reinstates Trump Travel Ban, Fall Arguments Set” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood Was Jon Ossoff’s Death Star

There are many lessons Democrats should learn from Jon Ossoff’s expensive flame-out. (And they probably won’t.) But the most important might be this: Cozying up to Planned Parenthood is a great way to lose.

Let’s start by myth-busting. Whatever the Democrats said, Georgia’s Sixth District was not solidly Republican. Susan B. Anthony List’s political consultant Frank Cannon says: “Let’s not rewrite the narrative now that it’s inconvenient for the Democrats. This was not a deep red district that returned to its roots. The Democrats were attempting to flip a suburban district. One where Trump was far less popular than in most Republican districts. On paper, it should have worked.”

The former incumbent Tom Price used to win it by very large margins. That’s largely because the Democrats never contested it. Hillary Clinton came close to carrying it, losing by only 1.5 percent. It was an open seat. The district is filled with white suburban college graduates. That includes lots of moms. Those are the kind of voters whom the Democrats think they can scare. Remember the phony “War on Women”?

Bottom line: If Democrats are going to take back the House, they must win in districts like this. That’s why the Left threw everything it had at Karen Handel.

The Democrat’s Death Star

Planned Parenthood was one of the Democrats biggest weapons. In fact, it’s their Death Star.

Jon Ossoff leapt into bed with the nation’s biggest abortion business. He held special roundtables with women. The topic? The “scandal” that Handel wanted to cut off Planned Parenthood’s subsidies from the taxpayer. As the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported, “Democrat Jon Ossoff held a roundtable Friday with women’s health advocates and breast cancer survivors as his campaign stepped up the attack on Republican Karen Handel’s stint at a breast-cancer charity.”

Ossoff relentlessly went after Handel in high profile debates. Her crime? Trying to keep anti-cancer money given to the Susan G. Komen Foundation from going to Planned Parenthood’s coffers. “She imposed her own views and cut off funding for breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood,” Ossoff charged in their June 6 debate.

His campaign ran an attack ad calling Handel’s stance “unforgiveable.” This wasn’t an outside group mind you. It was the Ossoff campaign itself. This candidate didn’t just call in the Death Star. He practically lived on it. (Which is just as well, since he didn’t live in the district.)

Selling Baby Parts Doesn’t Win Votes

The national media has been slow to note the significance of Ossoff’s loss for how Planned Parenthood’s extreme abortion stance plays out politically in purplish places. But the local media extensively reported on the sharp contrast that emerged between Ossoff and Handel on the abortion issue: “A split on abortion is one of the starkest contrasts between the two candidates in the nationally-watched June 20 runoff to represent suburban Atlanta’s 6th District. And both candidates are banking that their positions will energize their supporters in the final stretch of the race.”

Planned Parenthood bet the farm on Ossoff, pouring more than $800,000 into his election. It was his second-largest financial backer, after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. (Again, not much money came to Ossoff from inside his actual district.)

The result? Georgia voters just elected another pro-life woman to Congress. Whether the corporate media will report it or not, the political class must take heed: If you want to win the votes of ordinary Americans, Planned Parenthood makes a terrible running mate. You can’t win House elections by blasting the districts from orbit. (For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood Was Jon Ossoff’s Death Star” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

On “Travel Ban,” Supreme Court Backs Away From Brink of a Constitutional Crisis

As the AP reports, the U.S. Supreme Court has thrown out most of the lower court decisions that crippled President Trump’s immigration decisions (that is, his “travel ban”). This is good news not just for fighting terrorism. It’s huge for fans of the separation of powers, the rule of law, national security, and democratic lawmaking. Read David French’s excellent legal analysis of why each of those claims is true.

Essentially, the lower courts vastly overreached the legitimate function of jurists. Their job was to scrutinize the laws to see whether President Trump’s decision to restrict travel from terrorist-ridden hellholes was Constitutional. Instead, they regurgitated his campaign rhetoric and pored over his Twitter archive to scrutinize his alleged motives. They invented imaginary rights for foreign residents. They granted legal “standing” to law firms who recruited foreign clients. Attempting to reverse the effects of a presidential election, they usurped the legitimate powers of the president.

The executive branch has broad Constitutional and legislated authority to protect national security. Immigrants have zero presumptive right to enter the United States. It would be perfectly Constitutional, though stupid, to admit them based on aesthetics (that is, a “Melania” standard).

Avoiding a Constitutional Crisis

Had the Supreme Court followed the lower courts’ lawless precedent on this case, it should have provoked a Constitutional crisis — in the form of GOP-backed bills to challenge courts’ jurisdiction, or term-limit SCOTUS members. I think that even the liberal justices on the Supreme Court saw that, which is why most of them blinked and backed away from the brink.

With many crucial issues on the docket, that crisis still might come. There is just one way to avoid it: If the president stays true to his campaign to appoint only strict constructionists to the courts. Or else if conservatives cravenly surrender.

I wrote before the 2016 election that the race was mostly about the courts. Since Roe v. Wade, the left has relied on the judicial branch to override voters’ will on crucial issues. Progressives wield vast, overweening power. They micromanage the media. They smother and censor the colleges. They terrorize big business via pressure campaigns.

Still, sometimes all that doesn’t turn out to be enough. We saw that in the recent Georgia election: Jon Ossoff called in Planned Parenthood as his Death Star, and still lost to the pro-life Karen Handel.

The Left’s All Purpose Plan for Overriding the Voters

So where they can’t get the votes, as they couldn’t on same-sex marriage, leftists follow this playbook:

Pretend that the U.S. Constitution enshrines whatever “basic rights” that academic elites invented five minutes ago — even those that would have horrified every one of the U.S. Founders, down to the last pallid Deist.

Claim that “international norms” from foreign courts or the United Nations have binding force in basic American laws.

Convince Democrat appointees on lower courts to overturn or stay a democratically enacted law. Or a legitimate use of presidential authority. Because it violates those invented rights.

Pretend that each case is the same as Brown v. Board of Education. And each of their opponents is no better than a bigoted Southern sheriff. Imply that those who put up a fight will end up as disgraced and marginalized as white segregationists.

Win in the Supreme Court by a narrow margin. Then despite the learned dissents by distinguished jurists…

Pretend that anyone who still opposes the decision is an uncivilized Neanderthal. Their organizations are “hate groups.” Except if they’re Muslim. Those groups are exempt, because they’re so peaceful that we don’t want to provoke them.

Use this brand-new consensus to browbeat churches into rewriting the Gospel. Then presto-chango, 2000 years of Christian belief and practice is discredited.

Rinse and repeat.

This strategy worked amazingly well on same-sex marriage. The narrowly decided and crudely anti-Constitutional Obergefell decision is now being foamed into every nook and corner of the culture like toxic asbestos insulation. “Mainline” churchmen (Catholic and Protestant alike) are falling over themselves to accommodate it. They’re wearing out holes in their clerical shirts from patting themselves on the back for groveling before Caesar.

We Will Fight in the Wedding Chapels

But the same strategy backfired on abortion. The pro-life movement is gaining in power, popularity, and influence. Even the socially laissez faire President Trump seems like a genuine convert on the topic.

So there’s no need to despair. And no excuse to retreat into some “Benedict Option” ghetto, which would always be just one court decision away from the cops coming to remove Christian kids from their parents’ custody. Which is happening not in North Korea but in Canada.

We should welcome lawful decisions, and fight lawless ones tooth and nail. We cannot even give up on seemingly implausible goals like overturning Obergefell, and returning marriage jurisdiction to the states. That decision, as Justice Roberts (hardly a right-wing extremist) warned, planted religious liberty time bombs throughout our legal system. Christianity cannot coexist with legal same-sex marriage forever. One of them or the other will end up legally hamstrung. America needs to pick between them.

Yes fixing Obergefell seems out of reach and hopelessly unpopular. But then, in 1973, Roe v. Wade seemed untouchable too. (For more from the author of “On “Travel Ban,” Supreme Court Backs Away From Brink of a Constitutional Crisis” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Study of Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage Says It Costs Jobs

Seattle’s $15-an-hour minimum wage law has cost the city jobs, according to a study released Monday that contradicted another new study published last week.

A University of Washington team studying the law’s effects found that the law has boosted pay in low-wage jobs since it took effect in 2015, but that it also caused a 9 percent reduction in hours worked, The Seattle Times reported. For an average low-wage Seattle worker, that’s a loss of about $125 per month, the study said.

“If you’re a low-skilled worker with one of those jobs, $125 a month is a sizable amount of money,” said Mark Long, one of the authors. “It can be the difference between being able to pay your rent and not being able to pay your rent.” (Read more from “New Study of Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage Says It Costs Jobs” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Feds Killed LaVoy Finicum for Occupying Federal Refuge but Allow Hippie-Leftists to Run Around Naked and Unmolested

The counter-culture group “Rainbow Family” has gathered illegally in Oregon’s Malheur National Forest, site of a federal standoff with a constitutionalist group more than a year ago that resulted in the death of one of it members and seven more being arrested.

The Associated Press reported 600 members of the Rainbow group are already camped near Flagtail Meadow in the park, but Malheur National Forest officials are expecting between 10,000-30,000 to arrive by July 4.

“The group refused to sign a special use permit, required for groups of more than 75. The group has noted that it claims no leader, and consequently there is no one to sign such permits. The Malhuer Forest Service said it will require operating conditions that users must abide by,” according to the AP.

The official gathering will last from July 1-7.

Ryan Nehl, deputy Forest Service supervisor on the Malheur, said the Forest Service will not attempt to stop the gathering.

“It’s a risk-based decision,” he said. “To try and kick them off the land would present a danger to employees and the public.”

The event is put on by the Rainbow Family of Living Light, “a loosely-organized group that annually picks a spot for its gathering and invites like-minded people to attend for multiple days of music, camping, dancing and communal hanging out,” the Capital Press reported. The gatherings have been held since the 1970s.

The federal government took a much more aggressive approach in January 2016 when the group Citizens for Constitutional Freedom set up camp at the refuge to protest the federal government’s control over lands the organization said rightly belong to the states or to the people.

One of the group’s chief concerns was the ability of ranchers to graze cattle on federally controlled lands, which the feds allow, but restrict for the stated purpose of preventing overgrazing.

Most of the dozens who participated in the protest were armed. Ammon Bundy, one of the group’s leaders, explained why to CBS News.

“There is an imminent threat towards us and it is our right to do that,” Bundy said referring to law enforcement officials. “But also we are serious. We are serious about being here, we’re serious about defending our rights and we’re serious about getting some things straightened out, but we have no intention on using any type of force, intimidation. Those are not our methods.”

Bundy is the son of Cliven Bundy, who led a similar highly publicized protest in 2014 in Nevada, which resulted in a dramatic showdown with ranchers and federal law enforcement, but no violence ensued.

The Oregon protest lasted for about six weeks and led to the death of Citizens for Constitutional Freedom spokesman Lavoy Finicum, 54, when law enforcement officials shot him multiple times after he did not comply when they sought to arrest him and members of his group on a remote stretch of road.

The Finicum family is suing the federal government and the state of Oregon for excessive use of force and employing improper police procedures.

Seven of the protesters were charged with conspiring to impede federal employees in doing their jobs. A jury found all seven men not guilty last October.

KrisAnne Hall, a constitutional law expert who visited with the protesters a week before Finicum was shot, said the difference between how the Rainbow Family gathering and the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom are being treated is glaring.

“The Rainbow Family Gathering in Oregon should make federal government hypocrisy undeniably evident,” Hall told Western Journalism. “Many who are angry at this double standard are saying that there is no difference between this event and the rancher protest that occurred last year.”

“It appears as if the federal government is picking sides in the liberal/conservative battle, when in reality they are rewarding the position that does not challenge them,” she added. “That is why the federal forestry agents never tried to ‘bring the Ranchers a permit’ for their protest as Mr. Nehl is doing for the Rainbow Family. It is why local and federal governments are not demanding that armed federal agents move in and extract the Rainbow Family.”

“The First Amendment was codified to prevent the federal government from punishing protests,” Hall said.

Joe Miller, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation and publisher of the political site Restoring Liberty, agreed with Hall that a double standard is in play.

“I’m not surprised,” Miller said. “If you’re a committed activist for imposing constitutional restraints on DC, we’ve entered an era where you can count on losing your property, freedom, and maybe even your life. But if you’re a committed activist for unrestrained personal license, this is your era where you can count on being rewarded in proportion to the insanity of your actions.”

Western Journalism sought comment from Malheur regarding the different treatment the two groups received from federal officials.

Public information officer Ethan Ready did not address this issue, but replied by email. “The Rainbow Family refused to apply for and sign the required federal permit for their gathering. Therefore, we consider this to be an unauthorized gathering,” Ready said. “We have required that the group comply with very specific terms and conditions issued to them through an Event Design Criteria document that was issued to them on Thursday.” (For more from the author of “Feds Killed LaVoy Finicum for Occupying Federal Refuge but Allow Hippie-Leftists to Run Around Naked and Unmolested” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Comment: “It’s a Shame More Republicans Weren’t Shot”

Five people were shot after a political attack against members of my government took place outside DC last week. A man asked if the people playing baseball were Republicans or Democrats. Then he started shooting.

When a professor at my state university recently painted Captain America holding up the severed head of my president, and then put that painting on display at the University of Alaska, we were reassured that the act itself was not an act of violence and that no one was hurt by it. He was simply channeling his grief at the outcome of the election.

When Americans were attacked and beat up for attending rallies in support of the man who is now our president, we could at least be reminded that it wasn’t armed conflict and that no one had been killed. Nothing to worry about, right?

Then a professor in the DC area declared to the world last month that Republicans in Congress, “should be lined up and shot. That’s not hyperbole…” Maybe he didn’t mean it, some said.

What do we tell ourselves now, after a man terrorized Americans at a baseball practice because he found their politics unacceptable? What do we tell ourselves after some responded to the attack, “Its’s a shame more Republicans weren’t shot”, a Democrat Party official in Nebraska declared publicly, “I’m glad he got shot. I wish he was f****ing dead.”, and the founder of a major liberal news site declared: “Republicans are getting what they want.”

Running for office is expected to have its share of challenges of course: public criticism, late nights, early mornings, time away from family, etc. But, excepting combat vets, the thought of getting shot at isn’t something most elected officials have ever had to wrestle with. Having people literally wanting you dead, and saying so publicly, isn’t something most elected officials have encountered throughout our nation’s history. In that, we have been blessed.

But something profound is happening in America today. A segment of our society has decided that it is not enough to disagree politically. Disagreements have always been with us, even profound ones. That is nothing new. What is new today is that some have abandoned resolving those disagreements without resorting to condemnation. Some in America have lost the capacity to let their personal ideas be challenged without seeing such challenges as a threat to their person, as a threat to their safety. While they are glad to publicly celebrate the defeat of their political opponents on Election Day, they need a “safe space” if one of their candidates loses. Their political opponents and those who would support them are so evil, that unprovoked violence against them is justified.

A college president in our neighboring state of Washington this week requested that state police help restore order on campus after a white professor insisted on teaching his class on a day when all white people were asked to leave campus. We have reached a very low point indeed, when the only way to avoid violence is to physically remove an entire race of people from an American college campus.

In political terms, we are witnessing what happens when Americans begin to lose trust in the ability of our political process to negotiate acceptable terms of peace between warring factions. In some countries, violence and threats of violence are how political differences are resolved. America was conceived in the idea that constitutional government, and an American’s right to free speech which it protects, provides an escape from such terrors. You see, freedom of speech doesn’t just protect the person speaking. In the end, it protects all of us, because it preserves the space necessary to communicate and resolve passionate, even offensive, disagreement.

Curtailing free speech, no matter how altruistic the motivation, deprives us of a critical tool in preventing violent political confrontation. Our nation’s founders were not ignorant of such conflict. They witnessed it in the years leading up to the American Revolution, and then over seven bloody years of armed conflict. They left us with many tools; a system of checks and balances, to slow and even pacify the rush to resolve political issues through violence and threatened violence.

Over the years, we have watched as many of those checks and balances have been frustrated, and as succeeding generations have received less and less training in a number of the tools that were at one time simply an assumed part of the American Experiment. As bizarre as it sounds, our laws no longer carry the force of law today. Our elected officials no longer feel bound by them as they once did. The growing fear that a judge or justice will step in to overturn a written law or the result of an election, for whatever reason, has hastened the erosion of confidence that everyday Americans still have in our laws, and in the political processes that determine what those laws will be.

Events like the attack last week, and the responses to it, confirm that our situation is most dire. While a civil war is not necessarily around the corner, we should recognize that we are already many steps down the path towards such a possibility. Now is not the time to simply comfort the survivors of these types of attacks. Yes, comfort survivors. Yes, recognize the heroism and bravery of those who intervene on their behalf and on behalf of others who would have become victims otherwise. But also ask yourself what actions we can take today to alter course and to recover the confidence in our political institutions that has been lost.

Loss of confidence is not simply a marketing problem. It will require more than an expensive PR campaign to restore that confidence. It will require fundamental reforms and the hard work to bring those reforms about. It will require sacrifice on the part of each of us. As President Reagan reminded the generation of his day, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United State where men were free.” In the end, when our political institutions are working properly, they serve a valuable function: They provide our communities with tools to resolve the political differences that will always be with us—but only if those institutions are working properly. As Americans, it is our job to ensure that they are.

(For more from the author of “Comment: It’s a Shame More Republicans Weren’t Shot” please click HERE)

Rep. David Eastman is a conservative legislator in Alaska, representing the rural Mat-Su Valley (House District 10); He ran on a platform of fighting for genuine conservative reform, fiscally and socially, and remains committed to delivering on that promise.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report: CNN Imposing New Rules on Russia Coverage After Another Botched Story

Higher-ups at CNN are cracking down after another botched story regarding President Trump and Russia.

The network retracted and deleted a story late last week that claimed Anthony Scaramucci, who served on Trump’s transition team, was under FBI investigation for a meeting he had with a Russian executive. That story, which was based off of one unnamed congressional source, was false.

“No one should publish any content involving Russia without coming to me and Jason,” CNNMoney executive editor Rich Barbieri said in an email obtained by BuzzFeed. “This applies to social, video, editorial, and MoneyStream. No exceptions.” The “Jason” referred to in the email is a vice president at CNN, according to BuzzFeed. (Read more from “Report: CNN Imposing New Rules on Russia Coverage After Another Botched Story” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

EXACTLY WHAT SHE DESERVES: Professor Fired for Saying Otto Warmbier ‘Got Exactly What He Deserved’

The University of Delaware has sacked Katherine Dettwyler, the taxpayer-funded professor who declared that Otto Warmbier was a “spoiled,” “white, rich, clueless” American college student who “got exactly what he deserved” when he recently ended up comatose and then died at the age of 22 after serving part of a lengthy prison sentence in North Korea.

“The University of Delaware has announced that Katherine Dettwyler, who last taught in the spring as an adjunct faculty member, will not be rehired to teach at the University in the future,” school officials said in a statement sent to The Daily Caller on Sunday.

Dettwyler made her comments on Wednesday on Facebook and in the comments section of a National Review article. At some point on Friday, she later removed or otherwise concealed the comments.

“Is it wrong of me to think that Otto Warmbier got exactly what he deserved?” the no-longer-employed professor wondered on Facebook. “He went to North Korea, for fuck’s sake, and then acted like a spoiled, naive, arrogant, US college student who had never had to face the consequences of his actions.”

The 62-year-old anthropology professor — an expert on breastfeeding (according to a now-deleted curriculum vitae) — was even more critical of Warmbier in her National Review comments. (Read more from “EXACTLY WHAT SHE DESERVES: Professor Fired for Saying Otto Warmbier ‘Got Exactly What He Deserved'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Horrifying Moment a 14-Year-Old Girl DANGLES and PLUNGES From a Six Flags Ride

A 14-year-old girl dangled and then fell from about 25 feet from a gondola ride at Six Flags Great Escape Amusement Park in Upstate New York on Saturday evening.

A crowd of people gathered beneath the girl as she was dangling on the stopped ride. Onlookers persuaded her to let to go of a bar she was holding and to fall into the arms of the awaiting crowd.

The girl did let go and fall, hitting a thicket of tree branches on the way down.

The Six Flags ride from which the girl fell is called the “Sky Ride.” It’s designed to be a gentle family ride which carries passengers through the park on a cable. It has no minimum height requirement.

The girl was treated on the spot and then rushed to a nearby hospital in a helicopter after the incident. (Read more from “The Horrifying Moment a 14-Year-Old Girl DANGLES and PLUNGES From a Six Flags Ride” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.